[Guille]

hi again,

It's the first time I hear about this paradox, but I can give some thoughts.

The man will never finish the book if and only if, he takes more time to write something that what that writing represents, and if he has a finite life (like all men). Even if time itself is infinite, his life, his time, is finite, so he won't finish.

[Mimee]

hey GUILLE

Thanks for your response


i agree with what your saying, about taking more time to write something than what the time represents - thats exactly the crux of the argument:
he takes 1 year to write about 1 day. and has to continue doing that. so if he lived to be 70, he may have only spent 50 yrs writing about 50 days. but the paradox is that if time were infinite then, I think (?but am not sure) the concept is that an infinite number of days is equivalent to an infinite number of years
infinite years = infinite days = infinite mins
?
its all just infinite?
thats kinda what my uni notes say?
still doesnt seem valid to me?
any thoughts?
thanks for respopnding

[dleviwing]

Mimee;
There are no paradoxes in reality. They are only created by the human mind.
Those minds that believe them, belong to fools. Ask you professor (or teacher) if he/she believes they exist.

It would appear that you have been given a task to teach you the meaning of futility.
I can only assume this is a philosophy class. J

http://sguthrie.net/infinity.htm

If you do an internet browse using "Tristram Shandy Paradox" as the search phrase, you will get many more links.

[Mimee]

hehehehehehe
yep it is!! i normally study philosophy subjects but on theories that dont involve mathematics or science.

im thinking im supposed to argue for or against whether they are peculiarities (but potentially possible) or whether they are genuine absurdities (which i think they are)?

unfortunately i cant just write 2000 words tho saying "this is silly because we arent infinite and wants the point thinking about it?" hehehe

the word you used "futility" does spring to mind though! it definetly is futile, as far as i can tell (unless im missing something that is not obvious to my untained little head)

thanks for giving your thoughts - I appreciate it

[Guille]

mimee,

I can now tell you two things.

First, that this paradox has, atleast, and I think, 3 true correct answers: a mathematical one, a physical one, and a philosophical one. Infinite is such a complex and abstract theme that it has to be studied in several manners.

The mathematical answer is YES. Although there has been an "infinites legth cladsification" that you can check in some web pages, and states whcih infinitesare "bigger" and "smaller", still all the infinites are equal in "legth". I write these three words in brakets because when talking about infinity, there is no size, it is just absolute continuity. But all of us, I think, now, that mathematicians are abstract and eccentric people, and they like to reflect this in their works and developmnents, and, thus, they decided to state that infinite years is equal to infinite days, infinite cows, infinite primes, infinite energy or even infinite cash.

The physical answer is NO. Of course, in mathematical physics, maybe the answer is yes, but, still, in mathematical physics, the infinites are still not dominated. Not only physically it is said that infinite years is not equal to ifninite days, but also more important: infinite is not physically possible. I like giving the example of a company that is managed and owned by the most greedy man on earth. He is so greedy, that he goes out of nature, becoming infintelly greedy. This infinitelly greedy man wanted to be infinitelly rich, so he stated one year that his apple company should produce infinite apples. That year, everybody on earth worked for the company, 6.5 billion people, the whole territory of earth was used to plant apple trees. Now, do you think that the company managed to produce infinite apples? NO. Pretty clearlly. First, the life of the people is finite, second, the space on earth, and evenof the universe, is finite, third, the time used (a year), is finite...And many others.

The philosophical answer is, as it can be expected from the undecided people that philosophers ussually are, YES AND NO. YES, they are equal, because infinite, according to some, is always infinite, has the same concept representation, so infinite whatever is always infinite. Other ssayd that each infinite is different and differs according to the "whatever" part of the phrase. If a year is more that a day, then, ifninite years is more than infinite days.

I hope this paragraphs help you in you research. By the way, what is this project for? Is it a college study?

Now, the second thing that I can tell you, is that if you are going to try to get a final answer to your questions and to the paradox, agreed between several members, you are lookin gin the wrong place, because each person has a theory here, and applies it to all the posts.

[Guille]

mimee,

For me, as for you, this paradox makes no sense, and also you have trouble understanding why or why not the infinites are equal, this is because infinite makes no sense. Infinite is not natural, and nature is everything. Infinite doesn't exist, or doesn't not exist, infinite is not part of reality. I hope these thoughts help you to have a clear scheme about such important subjects as time and infinite, and, as an old friend used to add at the end of his replies to me, "May this pearl of wisdom help to fill your sack during your voyage".

[Guille]

I developed this one thanks to a discussion with Antonio.

Change to occur requiers time. But if you think about it, change impplies invariance. Invariance impplies that there is no change. No change impplies no time.

Let's see who solves this one!

[Mimee]

hey thanks for all your ideas - thats what Im very grateful for - i know everyone will have a different theory and i guess thats what i was keen for - bounce some ideas around, cos i was so lost? it

its for university subject, but because i study externally i dont really ahve anyone to talk to or discuss it. so thanks again. im going to go think and read more and hopefully by my next post i will have something useful to add to your discussion!

thanks again!

[davidgow77]

Originally Posted by <<>> I developed this one thanks to a discussion with Antonio. Change to occur requiers time. But if you think about it, change impplies invariance. Invariance impplies that there is no change. No change impplies no time. Let's see who solves this one!

Guille... you should look at arguements regarding increasing/decreasing entropy within a given system for this one. Hawking discusses it in alot of his work, but I think the argument is flawed.

1. Change requires time (thats fine). But looking at it from a entropy point of view, then change can only occur in a system so long as EVENTUALLY the system changes back to its original state... in which case, how would you measure the time?

2. Change requires time, but relates only to a change or the order of a given system. If the order of a given system at the most basic level is measured by the relationships of all atoms (or quarks etc) in relation to eachother, then this means that the measurement of change in these relationships must be a measurement of Time. Ergo, Change does not REQUIRE time, so much that Change is itself measured by time. To put it another way.... time is how we measure measurable changes, and subsequently the progression of changes. Measuring time in hours, minutes and seconds is a way of constantly measuring changes within our own relative area of the universe. Specialist measurements (planck time) are used for measuring the relative changes in the universe that are not ordinarily observable. To summarise... on a basic level, change IS time. The maximum amount of change that can take place between any two points in time is limited by C.

I think Bob Dylan said it best when he said:

"Oh the Times, they are a'changing"



DG

[Guille]

Originally Posted by davidgow77 Guille... you should look at arguements regarding increasing/decreasing entropy within a given system for this one. Hawking discusses it in alot of his work, but I think the argument is flawed. 1. Change requires time (thats fine). But looking at it from a entropy point of view, then change can only occur in a system so long as EVENTUALLY the system changes back to its original state... in which case, how would you measure the time?

I know which are the arguments about icnreasing and decreasing entropy, several of them, but I have my own theory about entropy, which is not enough developed to defend as much, but anyway: I posted it before, it is that I tyhink that the fact that entropy grows or decreases states the direction of time of the entropy, not of time.

I don't understand what you mean by your question.